No, I'm speaking in the abstract:
Given: that the essential core of language is "manipulation" in the pure sense of the word; to have an effect is to manipulate...
it follows: that no meaningful theoretical distinction can be made, at the ur-level, between various degrees of manipulation...
because: any such distinction relies upon mutually agreed-upon frames of reference, and in order even to define those I must "speak with" (i.e. manipulate) you.
Something like that.
In the real world, we can, and must, make these distinctions. But deconstructionist theory is NOT the real world...
(robt)
|